I can't say I thought of this one. Palin has been roundly criticized by the left and the Democrats (including Obama) for her "death panel" reference to the Obama health care proposal plan. She obviously upped the rhetoric, because that term is not used. Having read that part of the bill, as I posted previously, the wording calls for a "shall" to end-of-life required counselling.
But the headline, "Palin Wins. If she's dim and Obama is brilliant, how did he lose the argument to her?" Well, Obama and the Democrats did lose if the Senate is going to change the language in the bill that applies to this section. The Democrats have been denying something that they are now going to have to change. Again, having read the language, I think it could have been phrased much better. But without Palin's rhetoric, would the language of the bill have been changed? And in changing the wording, it is admission that this bill has at least one problem (and probably more). Is what she did any different from the anti-Bush rhetoric and imaging of the past by his opponents?
I think this debate and the townhalls are good, because they get at least some people thinking. It is no different than other debates of the past. Some crazy things might be said that are incorrect, but over the breadth of the discussion, people are getting information and will make a far more intelligent decision than just sitting back and accepting legislation annointed by Congress and the mainstream media.
By the way, if the mainstream media had ignored Palin's wording and did not try to make her look ignorant, would anything have come of the quote?
No comments:
Post a Comment